Dave CROCKER <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> writes:
My assumption was not that the work was "available" for "IETF use".
My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and simple.
The IETF was free to do whatever the hell if felt like with the work
and I retained no rights. Use it. Give it to another group. Kill
it. Whatever.
Really. That's the cultural basis that I believe formed this
community and informed participants in it.
d/
ps. Well, to be more complete, I assumed that IETF ownership meant
that the document was required to be publicly available and -- though
I didn't know the term at the time -- there was public permission for
derivative works by whoever felt like doing the deriving.
These are good ideas to put in a "requirements for IETF copying license"
document, as input to lawyers to craft legal text for. When translated
into legal text, I believe the IETF cultural preference maps closely to
the BSD license.
None of the RFC policies around copyright (including RFC 2026, RFC 3978,
and RFC 5378) are close to your assumptions. Most critically, none of
the policies transfers copyrights from the contributor to the IETF.
It is unfortunate that there has been such a big gap between the IETF
policy texts and what many people with long IETF experience believe it
should say. This complicated the IPR WG effort: rather than letting the
new text map more closely to the IETF culture, the document authors
re-used text from earlier documents.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf